Sunday, August 25, 2013

With mid terms approaching, Republicans can only dream of those six Senate seats. There are several combinations that would work. But Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Montana, West Virginia and Alaska look SO winnable. All six states broke for Mitt Romney in 2012. In most cases, the result wasn't close.

Democrats see 2014 as the year where the Repbublicans' last chance(hopefully) comes up short. And it might. If it does, it might be a long time before Republicans are this close to controlling both houses. However, it's no certainty that Dems can split the remainder of the board. 51-47 could easily become 53-45.

With Obamacare now accurately positioned as a "tax," many former advocates may be rethinking the entire legislation. Without question, if Republicans retake the Senate, while holding the House, a floor vote will happen. Then those Democrats still holding to their convictions will be forced to defend their vote for a middle class tax increase.

It is fortunate for the Republican establishment that this "diversion" will take forefront. The party has never been closer to a split. This past election and the all out effort to "cram Mitt Romney down the throats" of the base, will not be forgiven or forgotten. The bases problem amounts to identifying friend and foe.

Imagine a triangle. On one corner, you have the traditional "Dewey Rockefeller Republicans." Sean Hannity accurately identifed John McCain as a leader of this faction. He is joined by Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mike Castle, Lincoln Chaffee(now an independent), Lowell Weicker, Dede Scazafava, William Weld and what remains of those originally labeled "liberal Republicans." Today, they are commonly referred to as R.I.N.O.s(Republicans in name only).

Actually R.I.N.O.s of today were pretty much the norm fifty years ago. They didn't change their positions. The party gradually drifted away from them. I can recall Paul Tsongas, a Democrat who referred to himself as a "pro-business liberal." He was considered by most Democrats as "more in tune with Republican" standards. And, from a pure fiscal point of view, he was.

The second end of the triangle is reserved for the "New Conservatives." Many might have been in the "Dewey Rockefeller" camp in 1958.(George H.W. Bush is one who comes to mind) Others came from (not surprisingly) Democrat roots. During the 1950's, many Democrats who took exception to federal intervention on such items as the court ordered busing, school prayer and abortion. They were not to the point where they wanted to discard the overall plan. But, they sought to draw a line. Their support for a strong military gained them much coveted status as "conservatives."

Were they actually conservatives? In their eyes, they were. However, their ideas of conservatism were not that far removed from the Dewey Rockefellers. Nor, did it conflict with the New Deal concept of the "central government managing" the economy. Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul described these new conservatives as "Neo-Cons." According to Paul, they advocate a "large, Washington D.C. based central government to advance and facilitate conservative principles."

The "dogmatics" occupy the triangle's apex. These Republicans seek a "full repeal of Roe versus Wade," advocate a constitutional amendment that would "define marriage as a union between a man and a woman," and to "deport all residents holding no legal status."

"Neo Cons" have successfully connected with this third group by taking a "pro life" stance on abortion. They have also indicated their "anti-gay marriage" preference. In doing so, they have strategically out manuevered the "Dewey
Rockefellers," effectively taking control of the party.

The question is "what percentage" of the true Republican base is represented by all three groups collectively? Surprisingly, it may be less than half. Some say it may be less than one-fourth, more like 20%! If that's the case, who actually composes the base?

During the past 30 years an interesting phenomenon has unfolded. The South, traditionally referred to as the "solid south" switched from reliably Democrat to solid Republican. It actually began in 1964 and continued into the seventies. Jimmy Carter temporarily slowed the defection in 1976. But the reprieve proved to be "fools gold." Carter may have been a Southerner. But his ideology was more consistent with his running mate, Walter Mondale. Southerners eventually figured this out and dumped him in 1980.

Ronald Reagan won the hearts and minds of Southerners with his promise to "reduce the size and cost of government." Out of nowhere emerged a new standard. True, the former California governor lacked the typical Republican pedigree. But his programs were not at odds with party pursuits. A standard had been established. And with it an alternative to the idea of a consolidation of power in Washington, D.C..

So there is lies! True, Appomattox is 148 years in the rear view mirror. But the spirit of states rights(Reagan called it federalism)lives. As a result, a "constititionalist" finds open and accepting ears to their argument that the "founders got it right."

Somewhere between the three corners of the triangle the "meat" of the party has emerged. They are made up of "Reagan Democrats," those who switched parties in the eighties, "10thers," who seek a literal interpretation of the 10th amendment, fiscal conservatives and Libertarians. Because they are a "hodge podge" of interests and viewpoints, they have been slow to assume their rightful place as "party chiefs and captains." However, one leader, one election could change that.

Democrats actually fear this result more than the Republican Establishment. These Republicans do not represent the Harvard or Yale crowd. In fact, most aren't wealthy. This is middle class America manifested. There is much common ground with traditional Democrats, namely JFK Dems. There are likewise countless commonalities with voters who refer to themselves as "Independents." It points to a "Ronald Reagan type" general election result.

Neo-Cons are hoping that Jeb Bush will ultimately throw his hat into the ring. While general election victory will not be assured, a lightly contested primary will be. The GOP status quot will continue. More conservative judicial appointments would be expected. Some sort of a national healthcare compromise would be reached. The military would be maintained. Big business would breathe a little easier.

Democrats know that Bush's nomination will make for a difficult, yet winnable general election. Florida will likely be off the board. John Kasich's selection as running mate could create an "electoral math problem." A Mexican first lady would be something new. But the message and the Republican image would remain largely intact.

The problem stems from "what if Jeb elects not to run?" All indications thus far point in that direction. If he ultimately decides to stay out, the race will be wide open like never before. And, that could ultimately result in a take over by the base.

It took a few years to figure it out. But, smarter minds have prevailed. The present Republican leadership is feeble at best. Money can always be found. And a new direction, complete with dynamic new leadership, stressing traditional American principles can lead to a new American experiment.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

The shock of losing the 2012 presidential election has worn off for Republicans. Even those heated blame game, post election writings, are mostly a memory. The party is eying the 2014 midterms with vigor.

Obamacare is as large a specter as ever. Dodd-Frank looms as the juggernaut aimed at destroying the financial sector. The other side continues to not get the point that high corporate taxes encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.

What are we missing? Could it be trust? And if so, why?

Cynicism is rampant in America. Republican. Democrat. Independent. As one former CIA operative put it, "it's like a university with a red team and blue team." They are "opponents." But actually, "opposite extremes of the same ingredient."

One disgusted Republican, who referred to himself as a "constitutionalist" described the Washington establishment as "Republicrats and Democans." As he reminded, they posture, then meet behind closed doors and ultimately proclaim that they have "reached a consensus."

When reviewing the pedigree of today's political leaders, it is quickly noted that they generally belong to the same club. It is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, and that infamous creed of Ivy elites. You might call them, "America's ruling class."
Almost sounds like "nobility," doesn't it? I thought that we had left that distinction behind in England, France, Germany or wherever our ancestors came from! Obviously, I was mistaken!

True, you can hail from a university outside the league. But the idea of term limits is something that has been positioned as a guaranteed way of your "non-league" representitive compromising influence. Especially when dealing with the ever growing federal bureaucracy.

In a previous post, we differentiated "New Conservative(Neo-Con) and "Constititionalist Conservatives." We showed the historic ties between the Neo-Cons and the current Democrat leadership. We even attempted to explain how both had impacted the churches.

The Neo-Con methodology mandates a close association(and preferably control) of the central bureaucracy. Because the Constitutionalists seek a more literal 10th amendment application, the bureaucracy is seen as something to downsize, as opposed to manipulate.

History isn't always kind! A suggested link to Leon Trotsky would outrage Republican Establishment types. So would the suggestion that the Democrat leadership is three generations removed from the Frankfort school. Yet, the end result speaks for itself.

Middle America is fuming. We are watching our country gradually melt away. The jobs that have returned have been generally "part time for less money." The cost of healthcare isn't decreasing. College tuition, except in the state of Texas, is skyrocketing out of sight. At every turn we are seeing more government. There is growing concern about a vast erosion of our privacy.

Yes, Americans are slightly cynical! And, for good reason! The question that looms is quite simple: "Can we resume trust in those same "Repubicrats and Democans to work something out, finding a "consensus?" Do we have any real choice?"

Maybe. But we must again consult history. Who was arguably the most effective president over the past fifty years and why?" If you answered Ronald Reagan, we're in agreement. Obviously most Democrats would say Bill Clinton. Some might say John F. Kennedy. For that reason, we will point out a commonality that all three shared.

Reagan, Clinton and Kennedy were "supply siders." They all believed in a market based economy. Barack Obama, the Bushes, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon were Keynesians. They believed that you could spend your way out of a recession. This notation is worth careful study.

John Maynard Keynesian, the famous British economist heavily influenced Franklin D. Roosevelt. Much of Roosevelt's New Deal has the Keynesian stamp. Historians conclude that Keynesian was influenced by Marxist theory.

Clinton, unlike both Reagan and Kennedy did not cut taxes. In fact,under his watch, the American people endured one of the largest tax increases in history. We also witnessed the beginning of the largest wealth transfer ever. This continued through the Bush years and remains in motion as Obama begins his second term.

Somehow, this sounds inconsistent! At least inconsistent with what candidates were supposed to stand for. Or, perhaps the country has simply grown so large and so complicated that a president is naught but a figurehead! At least one group thinks so.

"The Republic" is a grassroots organization that emphatically proclaims that America is neither Republican or Democrat. In fact, they describe the United States as "a corporation." Worse still, we are no longer run by people within our borders. It's truly a "global thing."

Sounds a big "lugubrious," to say the least!

For those not yet on board with "the Republic," another theory beacons. In 1910 a group of high level bankers secretly met at Jekyll Island, Georgia. The topic: "Big banks declining market share." The solution: "The Federal Reserve."

If you have read, "G. Edward Griffin's book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," you noted that these banking interests were largely from the Northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. Through the backdoor tax of inflation, the American people were unknowingly coaxed into paying for World World War one, the Bolshevik revolution, the saving and replenishing of England's 1920's social welfare system, the Great Depression, World War two, the Cold War, Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the banking meltdown.

Inflation was their tool. Case in point: Look how much a dollar bought in 1910. Look how much it buys today! Meanwhile, these same cartels' collective net work has topped 100 trillion dollars! Nobody knows for certain exactly how they accumulated it. But some of us have an idea...

Which brings us full circle as to where we are today. We have a middle class that is shinking with every passing hour. We have a growing number of Americans in poverty. And, we have a tiny enclave of fortunates who are getting more wealthy by the minute. It is eerily reminiscent of Matt Damon's recent box office smash, "Elysium."

While Kennedy was part of the club, he was a statesman. Clinton aspired to be part of the club. Where he swooned was after his admission to it. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, the former Arkansas Governor never faced down the Soviet Union. He served in post Cold War America. His deficit reduction was a fruit of it!

A large number of Americans feel that only a social awakening can alter the decline. A point can be made to encourage life with the same intensity as termination. Yet, the issue maintains the perception of being "hot," or in Karl Rove's words, "toxic."

By the same token another formally "toxic" term may not be as toxic as in times past. The ability of individual states becoming more self sufficient is becoming a talking point. The term "Fedealism"(used to describe Reagan's agenda) is giving way to "individual laboratories" where states are encouraged to "invent" and practice "entrepreneurship."

Naturally, this goes against the grain of the "Neo-Cons." Not to mention, contemporary Democrats. After all, this thinking is polar opposite to their vision of a large, Washington, D.C. based central government, making decisions for us that are, naturally, in our best interest!

Republicans have a choice. If they find "Elysium" sexy, they should embrace a nominee like the last one. For those who think that "going left is safe," remember 2008. Both candidates were "Neo-Cons," by the way.

Conversely, a return to Federalism could be the true path to prosperity. Still, to embrace the 10th amendment is frightening. Our people have been conditioned to see big government as a security blanket. There must be tangibles that accompany change.

There must also be a certain amount of sensitivity exhibited by proponents. The other side will use scare tactics. What makes it even more difficult is opponents to Federalism sit on both sides of the aisle.

Constitutional conservatives can introduce new dialog, long considered "taboo" by Neo-Cons. Discussions about a "wealth transfer" aren't generally initiated by Republicans. Neither is a "Catastropic health insurance pool." Ditto for restrictions on offshore outsourcing and how to they could be "implemented in conjunction with a "cut" in corporate taxes.

A proclamation of "America first" hasn't been heard in recent times. In fact, the current President spent his first year making apologies to our European friends, on our behalf. Strangely enough, however, you haven't heard him apologize to the American people for the number of jobs that have been shipped abroad.

A Constitutional conservative can deride Fortune 500 companies. They can even link them to the same globalist banking cartels who systematically stole trillions from the American people. By merely recounting the policies and philosophies of our founding fathers, Constitutionalists can make the case for a grand exit from the United Nations and Isolationism.

Neo-Cons shiver at the very thought! But, the mood in America is troubled, positively restive! More Americans are feeling that they have been poorly served by their leadership. It won't be difficult to kindle the kind of fire that could really transform Amerioa.